#489 closed editorial (incorporated)
is P5's definition of strong validator consistent with P4?
Reported by: | julian.reschke@… | Owned by: | draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 24 |
Component: | p5-range | Severity: | In WG Last Call |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description (last modified by julian.reschke@…)
(carried over from #462)
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-22.html#rfc.section.4.3.p.1>:
"A response might transfer only a subrange of a representation if the connection closed prematurely or if the request used one or more Range specifications. After several such transfers, a client might have received several ranges of the same representation. These ranges can only be safely combined if they all have in common the same strong validator, where "strong validator" is defined to be either an entity-tag that is not marked as weak (Section 2.3 of [Part4]) or, if no entity-tag is provided, a Last-Modified value that is strong in the sense defined by Section 2.2.2 of [Part4]."
Is the definition consistent with P4? If so, can we simplify the text? Otherwise rephrase to avoid any confusion.
Change History (5)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by fielding@…
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by fielding@…
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 24
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from new to closed
In 2616, it was consistent. The current text was introduced in [1374], maybe we should back out parts of that change for clarity.